"The two party system is really a one party system. You could call it the Demublican party

[genie_weenie]

or the Republicrat party, take your pick. Everyone knows I'm telling the truth about this."

Who said it? That evil Ralph Nader responsible for EVERYTHING Bush has done?

Why no, it's http://www.bigthink.com/policy-politics/1618">Dennis Kucinich.

[ulysses]

1. incoming!

[TahitiNut]

43. !

:popcorn:

[kelligesq]

2. Nope, I've been saying it for a year, but I'm doing something about it

do we walk the talk or

just talk the talk ?

It's WE THE PEOPLE against "we the corporations" and all those they've bought in
DC.

We either stand up and say "that's enough" - return to the Constitution, the
Bill of Rights, the Law because we are 300 million people against the 1 percent
or we sink further into "fascism" also known as "corporatism".

John Edwards is so right. The system is broken and it happened because we have been sheeple.

It's time to speak up and let the Pelosi's and Rahm Emanuels and Harry Reid's know THEY LIED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE just as much as the current mis-administration has. They're a rubber stamp for the mis- administration.

And we're gonna stand up , tell them so, and not take it anymore !


http://www.PetitionOnline.com/DraftJRE/petition.html

[genie_weenie]

3. The only thing I disagree with you

is the idea of a Return to the Constitution. The Country was never for the people. The Founders were for the rich, landed elite. The history of America in the 19th century was a battle against the people using racism (to keep poor whites kept seperate from african americans and native americans), and other tools.

It's no different today.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

5. And that's why we have the Electoral College. We The People were not to be trusted by

electing a President with the popular vote.

[genie_weenie]

57. You! Yes You! Who let you out to express an opinion on Government!

Only the Elite are trained and learned enough to decide such issues, back to work as a Cog for Industry or the Military!!!

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

58. ----------->

<hiding in my own little corner, which is a smear speck in the Universe, being taught "my place">

genie weenie -------> :rofl:

[kelligesq]

70. Exactly. That's what the New World Order is. And its taken over. Go here:

http://johnedwardsmovementcontin.smfforfree4.com/index.php/topic,430.15.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected the promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world-government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the National auto-determination practiced in past centuries.--

That means THEY think YOU are too stupid to vote for what they consider beneficial.......TO THEM

David Rockefeller (1991 Speech to the Trilateral Commission- co founded by GHW Bush)


After the shock of this settles in, you may be interested in the many quotations from Kissinger, Senators, and other politicians, and especially read
Barry Goldwater's quotation. Does the WTO come to mind?

"The Trilateral Commission is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States. The Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power political, monetary, intellectual and ecclesiastical. What the Trilateral Commission intends is to create a worldwide economic power superior to the political governments of the nationstates involved. As managers and creators of the system, they will rule the future."

U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater in his l964 book: With No Apologies.


http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/believe_new_world_order.htm

Does the mis-administrations's scuttling of the Constitution and goal of trying to erase our sovereignty; the borders between Mexico and Canada now make sense?

And allowing the WTO to dictate all trade policy? And who is the WTO and IMF? Think about it. It's David Rockefeller and about 500 banking families, including Bush, deciding they are more fit to run the world than the people. Too much inbreeding if you ask me.

What bothers me most, is that our turncoat Senators and Reps wont impeach for treason against the country and the Constitution and our Sovereignty.

That has to mean they're all in on "The New World Order" except Kucinich and Wexler and maybe Leahy.

[kelligesq]

71. Kick it for restoring the Constitution and our Sovereignty -

http://johnedwardsmovementcontin.smfforfree4.com/index....

[defendandprotect]

60. Right . . only the propertied could vote. Slavery compromise leading to Civil War ---

Nation founded on genocide against native peoples --- !!!

Handing out parcels of land to the elites ---

However, the elites knew that "democracy --- all are created equal" was a threat to them,
but that they had time.

The ideals of democracy changed some of those earlier ideas which have had to fall ---
slavery is gone
women have the vote
we might acknowledge genocide --- but probably not soon.
The GOP is still against even apologizing for slavery!!!!

We've made some advancements on civil rights---
freed from religous/government control --- aha I guess you thought we had separation of church & state? --- women's right to reproductive freedom/homosexuality -- we may even soon totally free
gays --- !!!

But time isn't on our side ... because patriachy and capitalism is in the end suicidal ---
the pollution of our planet is deadly --
patriarchy's warmongering and warprofiteering are highly dangerous in a world full of atomic bombs.
the patriarchal war on nature was dumb . . . we are part of nature.

Global Warming isn't leaving us much time to solve these problems . . .
otherwise I would be optimistic in the long run.

[mdmc]

4. prediction

everyone that replies to this in the positive will be banned within a week.

I am feeling terrible physical pain right now, in my hands, shoulders, neck, and feet. I feel like death.

I am sorry for posting this as DU is very dear to me and I would hate to be tombstoned.

:kick:R

and if I'm gone, remember me as a peacemaker:patriot::cry:

[ulysses]

6. why would anyone who replies positively be banned?

Sorry you're in pain...

[mdmc]

8. this is a dem party site..

its all in the rules...

thank you for your kind thoughts my friend.

[mike_c]

10. I'v been saying this for years-- ever since I joined DU...

...and have not been banned.

I hope you fell better soon, my friend!

[mdmc]

38. thanks for your thoughts

peace and low stress.

I haven't been banned or warned yet either. We have both been here for some time sayin these things.

God bless,
mdmc

[ulysses]

14. criticism of the party has always been allowed.

Yes, there are parameters, but Skinner and Co. have always been great about allowing criticism within those parameters.

[UALRBSofL]

21. mdmc in some ways I agree but in some ways I disagree

In reference to the constitution I will say the democrats uphold it more so then the republicans. Bush has trampled the constitution. Illegal wiretapping, Guantanamo prisoners without legal representation, line item veto and that's just a few things.

As far as social issues, I don't see Obama or Clinton getting a whole lot done or passed through congress the way they think they will. However, what they propose are not the best they could do. Neither one is advocating UHC that we desperately need. Hillary's comes closest with total mandates. Neither one is proposing much on social security. Obama wants to increase caps above 99,500 but the cap is going up Jan 1st to 103,000 anyway and then the cap won't go up that much because neither republicans or democrats in congress will let it go up very high because it would be against there idea of excess money going to SS could better be spent by the wealthy investing it. The housing problems, I think Hillary has the strongest stand on that but it isn't good enough nor will it pass in congress. She wants a moratorium for the next 90 days to work on lowering interest rates then freeze the rates for a year. She will have a major fight on her hands with banks, lenders and much of congress. The Federal Government needs to bail out people on the verge of losing there homes. Purchase the homes from the bank, lower the interest rates, people could directly pay the government for the home loans. As far as improving schools, I think both Hillary and Obama have some good ideas that will pass. First, scrap NCLB. Obama wants to fix it, Hillary wants to throw it out. I agree with her. Increase pell grants exponentially where Bush has all but eliminated them.

As far as an economic stimulus, issues I see facing either one, They seem to be waffling on NAFTA. In some ways it has helped some regions of the country but in others it hasn't. So I don't see much change there. Developing thousands of jobs by going green is a good idea but lets see how far that goes when the country is so dependant on oil. Also, the billions of dollars to convert green is a tough pitch to congress.

As for reforming the government they both talk the talk. Lets see if they walk the walk. Removing lobbyists is a grand plan, but, they have been around for years and I'm not so sure they will just go away. Getting rid of no-bid contracts is a great idea and I believe it can be implemented.

Ending the war in Iraq will be achieved by both Obama and Clinton. However, I don't believe it will occur as quickly as they state. Immigration reform is going to be a battle. Too many people on both sides of the isle will be fighting that. There will be a compromise.

These are just a few of the issues where I see similarities and differences. So, to say republicans and democrats are the same is a big leap without actually stating how they are similar.

PS: Mods I hope I didn't violate the 4 paragraph rule. I was trying to state my case but needed to separate the issues. :)

[mdmc]

47. a very good summary

:toast:

[leftofthedial]

7. It's true. With *maybe* a dozen exceptions, everyone in DC is on the same "team"

THEIR OWN team. Once they get elected, we might as well not exist.

The differences between the two parties are important but minor. The difference between what they talk about and what they DO is enormous.

[genie_weenie]

9. Of course, Rulers

have long known their interests lie with each other not with "their" so-called people.

That's why Dennis offered a real change and was made a pariah by the illuminated indoctrination expounders (the media).

[mike_c]

11. K&R-- it's true, there are simply two flavors of the MIC war economy party...

...but both serve the same masters and have similar overall objectives for the future of America and its place in the world.

[LWolf]

12. He's right,

and anyone who wants to fight over my refusal to support either of the candidates left standing might want to listen carefully, and decide what kind of party they want.

I haven't heard this from him before, but it doesn't surprise me. It also mirrors my personal perspective on the 2-party system.

Finally, it certainly makes it crystal clear why he cannot get any support from within his own party for the crucial positions he takes for people, and for the constitution, and why he has big outside interests challenging his voice in the House this year.

I'd like to make this clip my sig-line. I think I'll go play with that right now.

Those who hate and fear Nader had their opportunity to nominate a candidate from the inside of the party who would bring in all those disenfranchised by the current status quo. They passed, and thus have given up any legitimate complaint about the results.

[stimbox]

13. K&R #5 for Dennis!

My first choice for President.
Hope he hangs on to his seat.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Xithras]

45. Yep. Eject the DLC membership.

That's the biggest difference between the two parties. The Republicans are irredeemably corrupt to the core. The Democratic party is not irredeemably corrupt, but is simply suffering from a malignant tumor of corruption called the DLC. Ejecting the DLC and its membership from the party will reaffirm the parties populist ideals and set the party back on a course to greatness.

Of course, if the tumor is ignored, it will eventually grow until it kills us. It needs to be cut out now before it can do further damage.

[defendandprotect]

61. Just how big is that tumor when you know that the "blue dogs" meet

with Bush and GOP leadership to decide on strategy and voting?

And that those "blue dogs" are encouraged by the DLC . . . ?
In fact, the DLC is using party money to solicit more "blue dogs" to run against
Democratic liberals --!!!

So . . . is the tumor like half the party --- or 60% of the party . . .
or do you think less?

IMO, the tumor is verging on making the party non-redeemable --- if it hasn't already happened???

[Enrique]

16. a lot of people, including Kucinich, know he's lying about this

maybe the parties are not different enough, but it is a lie to say that there's only one party. Maybe the lie was useful rhetorically at one time, but certainly not since November 2000.

[AlphaCentauri]

26. Please high-lite the differences in both parties (n/t)

[Enrique]

27. the Housing Bill, to name a recent example

the parties are clearly in opposition over this legislation.

[AlphaCentauri]

35. I guess they disagree in the implementation but not in the end result n/t

[Enrique]

36. is that true?

I don't understand that statement. Is there substance behind it? The fact that you chose not to elaborate makes me suspect that it's just rhetoric to support the unsupportable idea that the parties are the same.

[AlphaCentauri]

51. The final result will be to bail the investors not the homeowner

The presidents plans like the senate bill will maintain people in debt with the mortgage companies even if the real value of the property they bought is 30% less than their mortgage. The 15 billions dollars package would help the lenders, home owner won't see a penny of that money.
No rhetoric just facts.

[EFerrari]

28. It's a mischaracterization, not a lie.

And, no matter the differences in policy positions, political parties act like political parties and they always will. So, the statement that the two are "the same" or "one party" isn't very useful in the first place, is it?

/oops

[Enrique]

30. if they're the same, then voting third party has no consequences

Florida 2000 showed the importance of this lie.

[EFerrari]

32. You could argue it the other way, too, that both major parties

decided to install the illegitimate candidate instead of Al Gore.

[Enrique]

33. you couldn't argue that convincingly

the fight over the recount lasted six weeks, got a lot of press, a number of books written about it, videos are no doubt on YouTube, etc. clearly documenting that the democrats were on Gore's side and the republicans were on Bush's side.

[EFerrari]

34. Well, what about Senate Democrats? They had an opportunity

to stand up with the CBC and did not.

Believe me, at my house we were glued to the tube watching it come down, so I remember the whole painful sequence.

I'm not arguing the the parties are "the same" but that they both act like political parties.

[Hydra]

40. Bush didn't win FL

So please don't carry water for Bushco.

[Enrique]

41. voting for Nader had consequences

[Hydra]

42. 1% of the vote

I had the pleasure of watching him whine on CNN that night.

Voting for Nader did NOT put Bush in. The vote flipping on Kerry was 5 million+, so Bushco has no problem erasing any number of our votes.

Our problem is that we let them do it.

[defendandprotect]

77. How right you are --!! "Our problem is that we let them do it!" . . .

Democrats still haven't reacted to it ---
Seems like they want us all to believe it didn't happen --- !!!

[defendandprotect]

62. Buchanan took 16,415 votes in Florida . . . did he steal the election from Gore?

How about the Libertarians who had 2,281 votes? Bush supposedly won Florida by 537 votes?

Though I recall the count getting down to something like 54 .....?
Anyone remember that before they slammed the door on that recount???

Buchanan took more than 3,000 votes in Palm Beach County which were intended for Gore --
compliments of the BUTTERFLY ballots
Think about it ---

[defendandprotect]

78. Third party candidates increase the number of people who come out to vote . . .

they increase the interest in the elections --- because usually third party candidates are actually sasying some sane . . .

Most of the public isn't voting --- we were down to the low 37% and 39% ...
Nader substantially increased the turn out --- and many of those people voted for Democrats.
Which has been acknowledged by Al From ---

According to Al From of the DLC, from reading poll results, Nader brought more people to the polls because he was in the race and talked about issues people cared about - adding more to Gore’s total than he took away.
“The assertion that Nader’s marginal vote hurt Gore is not borne out by polling data. When exit pollers asked voters how they would have voted in a two-way race, Bush actually won by a point. That was better than he did with Nader in the race.”

PLUS ---
How about dealing with this ...

More registered Democrats voted for Bush than voted for Nader.

[bean fidhleir]

17. Gore Vidal calls it the "Property Party", and Huey Long pointed out that

Congress is like a restaurant run by the elites: there are GOP waiters and Dem waiters, but the legislative grub is all cooked up in the same Wall Street kitchen. Justice Felix Frankfurter said that the ones who really make the laws are not in Congress, but in the boardrooms and exclusive clubs. And both parties obey them.

[Jim Lane]

18. The difference between Nader and Kucinich

You imply that it's inconsistent for any Kucinich supporter to denounce "(t)hat evil Ralph Nader (who's) responsible for EVERYTHING Bush has done".

The difference -- the huge difference -- is that Kucinich ran in the primaries, which is what Nader should have done in 2000. That's the way you get your ideas heard, try to attract voters, move the Democratic Party to the left, and yet don't help put Republicans in office.

I find it telling that, in the oceans of self-justification from the Naderites, they never get around to addressing the existence of party primaries.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. Why would a Green run in Democratic primaries?

[genie_weenie]

24. So Nader should have worked

within a corrupt system where he could be marginalized and quickly dismissed, just as Dennis was?

The two party system ensures those who disagree with the Ruling elites never rise to prominence and those who champion corporate interests are rewarded just as Bush was and as Benjamin Harrison or Grover Cleveland were before him.

[Jim Lane]

59. Kucinich's impact was positive. Nader's was harmful.

Did Kucinich, in two runs for President, completely transform the Democratic Party? No, of course not. But he recognizes that this struggle will take a while.

Kucinich's campaigns generated greater attention for progressive ideas. He was there on nationwide television calling for universal health care. Nader was occasionally quoted with generalized denunciations of both major parties, along with his complaints about not being in the debates.

You can argue about whether Nader should've been in the debates. The fact is that he wasn't. He never came close to the threshold of 15% of the vote in a major poll, which at least some debate sponsors used to determine eligibility.

Yes, it's hard to break through the current system, which favors the ruling elites. But denouncing the major parties and running as a Green or an independent doesn't accomplish it. Nader's campaigns have been, at best, a waste of time, money, and votes.

[defendandprotect]

79. The two major parties support the practices of the "ruling elites" . . .

You are ignoring reality --- the "debate sponsors" are corporations --- !!!
The people making decisions about who is in or out are the leadership of the Democratic and
Republican parties!!!
THEY are deciding if and when third parties can participate --
what do you think they will decide???!!!
Are you kidding me???

So an arbitrary figure of 15% when Dems and Repugs work to keep people off the ballots in these states is insane. Nader is having to sue --- which benefits EVERY third party candidate --- for
access to the ballots.

As soon as the impact that Kucinich and Edwards were creating was recognized --
Kucinich was actually bounced from two debates he was scheduled for --
and Edwards, as was the practice from the beginning, was totally ignored by the "free press."

And how would you suggest that the "ruling elites" be challenged if not from outside the parties which support THOSE practices??????

The next time you're thinking about Nader and his impact on the 2000 election ...
think about this . .
More registered Democrats voted for Bush than voted for Nader.

AND . . .

According to Al From of the DLC, from reading poll results, Nader brought more people to the polls because he was in the race and talked about issues people cared about - adding more to Gore’s total than he took away.
“The assertion that Nader’s marginal vote hurt Gore is not borne out by polling data. When exit pollers asked voters how they would have voted in a two-way race, Bush actually won by a point. That was better than he did with Nader in the race.”

[defendandprotect]

63. As you've probably noticed Kucinich and Edwards were OUT . . . in January?

Hillary and Obama people here at DU couldn't wait for them to get out --
they were hostile about it !!!

They want one candidate --- theirs --- tied up with a bow in early March!!!

What we need is IRV voting so that we can vote for 1st and 2nd and 3rd choices ---

Did you also notice that Kucinich was knocked out of the last PRIMARY DEBATES . . . ???

Primaries are simply locking voters into staying committed to candidates who by June look
like failures!!!

[Jim Lane]

68. Did YOU notice that, in 2004 and this year, Kucinich and Edwards were in debates, and Nader wasn't?

If Nader had run in the Democratic primaries in 2000, he probably wouldn't have become President, but he would've had a better chance that way than he did by disdaining the Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party has the allegiance of millions of people, a deep nationwide structure, and built-in advantages from our election and campaign financing laws. Is Nader's plan that he's going to upend all that by calling for IRV?

The point is that, if you want genuine progressive change in this country, accomplishing it by working through the Democratic Party is difficult. Accomplishing it by working through a third party is virtually impossible.

Perhaps that's why Kucinich, running in 2008, again ran in the Democratic primaries, knowing that he'd be treated the way he was in 2004. He still did more good that way than he would have if he'd followed Nader's arrogant and self-indulgent example.

[defendandprotect]

69. The year that JFK won the election, he entered the race in AUGUST ---

If Nader had run in the Democratic primaries, he would have gotten sidelined as Kucinich and
Edwards have this year . . . because CORPORATIONS are embedded in the Democratic Party, especially
via the DLC. And, btw, as Howard Dean got sidelined in 2004 to move Kerry into place.

There is still a wide commitment to the Democratic Party because people have no where else to go--
At least they think they have no where else to go.
The idea of a Democratic Party as representing progressive ideals of the past is farce --
the ideals have been bought out by corporate money infiltrating the party.
The election laws established by the two parties are there to protect themselves from challenge, especially by third parties.

IRV has nothing to do with party platforms, or how a party arranges its ethical standards, nor its campaign financing laws --
nor does it "upend" any policies that a party puts in place.

It simply has to do with voting for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd choices ---
Most other nations use that system for vote counting.
Perhaps you aren't the only one here not familiar with the system;
perhaps we should post a thread on it?

The DLC corporate-sponsored takeover of the Democratic Party is also progressing . . .
the 42-45 "blue dog" Democrats in the House/Senate confer with Bush and GOP on strategy and voting.
Meanwhile, the DLC is working to recruit more "blue dogs" to stand against liberal Democratic candidates.
Does that sound "progressive" to you?

Many of us have worked with the Democratic Party and can tell you that it's a system built on a money tower.
It's a party which now has more in common with the GOP than with its own Democratic members as you can see here at DU with comments about the "new" Democratic members we put in place last
November --- i.e., Reid and Pelosi -- !!!
Do you somehow fail to see the criticism here of their lack of action on the issues of Iraq and holding the GOP accountable?

Kucinich understands that right now, to be a member of a third party, would make his existence in the House more difficult. It would cut him off from comradery and funds.

As for Nader, I'd suggest that one day you'll probably be rethinking these views which I presume
are based on the propaganda by James Carville and Daschle that Nader caused the Gore loss in 2000.
Though, how people explain the Kerry loss in 2004, I'm not sure ---

At any rate --- here's AL FROM on the 2000 race telling you that

According to Al From of the DLC, from reading poll results, Nader brought more people to the polls because he was in the race and talked about issues people cared about - adding more to Gore’s total than he took away.
“The assertion that Nader’s marginal vote hurt Gore is not borne out by polling data. When exit pollers asked voters how they would have voted in a two-way race, Bush actually won by a point. That was better than he did with Nader in the race.”

Additionally, Gore WON in Florida --- a victory taken from him by Illegal tricks and black voter disenfranchisement by Bush’s brother and Choice Point corporation cost Gore thousands of votes in Florida --

Patrick Buchanan in Palm Beach County took 3,000 PLUS votes alone intended for Gore in the Butterfly
Ballot dirty trick --

Finally, you also need to ignore the Supreme Court in their final dirty trick in putting Bush in the White House ---

[Jim Lane]

72. A question for you and the others who disdain the Democratic Party

What is your optimistic-but-still-reasonable estimate of the first year in which someone other than the Democratic or Republican candidate will win the Presidency?

Don't tell me, "Well, Jim, if you and Dennis and millions of others would just recognize that the Democratic Party is corrupt and would start pushing IRV as a crucial issue, it could happen in 2012." Yeah, and if pigs had wings they'd be pigeons.

In other words, I'm not looking for what you'd like to see if the world were different. The question is: Given the world as it is now, when do you think we might see a Green or other non-Democrat, non-Republican being sworn in as President as a result of having won the election?

Here's my prediction, just taking 50 years as a convenient time frame:
* At no time in the next 50 years will the election by won by anyone not endorsed by at least one of the current two major parties.
* At no time in the next 50 years will more than five percent of the members of either house of Congress have been elected without the endorsement of at least one of the current two major parties.

If you disagree, I'd be interested in knowing how you see the country moving from here to there.

[defendandprotect]

73. I "disdain" the DLC and the corporate influence over the Democratic Party --- !!!!

Are you supporting the corporate-sponsored DLC and the "blue dogs" --- ???
DLC recruiting more blue dogs doesn't bother you---???

Many of us are here trying to support the Democratic Party --- what's left of it --
and their candidates when we can. Do you want to chase us away because we don't want to
support a corporate-Democratic Party---????

My first estimate of a GOP win would be that they STOLE another election ---

Nor am I naive about how desperately the GOP needs to have someone come in who will protect
their crimes.

How could the Democrats possibly lose this election --- ???
It would be near to impossible --- !!!
The country is 70% opposed to the war in Iraq ---
As Howard Dean has pointed out --- "McCain would mean four means years of Bush!"

As for IRV . . . and I guess we need some education on that at DU . ..
what exactly do you think the Democrats did for you in regard to the STEALS --- ???
Is there anything you can point to that the Democrats did to prevent another steal in 2008--??
**********************************************************************************************



In other words, I'm not looking for what you'd like to see if the world were different. The question is: Given the world as it is now, when do you think we might see a Green or other non-Democrat, non-Republican being sworn in as President as a result of having won the election?

If we had IRV voting . . . you'd probably have large votes for third party candidates ---
immediately. Do you know how many third parties there are now --- have you ever listened to what
they have to say? IRV would mean many more third parties --- provided we also lifted the restrictions which Democrats/Republicans TOGETHER put in place to prevent competition.

As you see above, I diaagree --

Meanwhile, we probably don't have 50 years considering the threat of Global Warming ---

[Jim Lane]

74. Responses

DLC recruiting more blue dogs doesn't bother you---???

Does it bother me that some people disagree with me on political issues, and use lawful means to pursue their objectives? Well, I wish they agreed with me, but they have the right to run, just as Nader does. One difference is that the DLC/blue dog types are acting in ways that will actually promote their stated objectives. In my opinion, Nader's actions serve to undercut his stated objectives (except for those times in 2000 when he more or less admitted that one of his objectives was to hurt Gore).

Many of us are here trying to support the Democratic Party --- what's left of it --
and their candidates when we can. Do you want to chase us away because we don't want to
support a corporate-Democratic Party---????

No, I certainly don't want to chase you away. Precisely the opposite! I want you to follow Kucinich's example -- to stay in the Democratic Party and help us make it a progressive party.

Finally, about IRV, I'm familiar with it. My point was that it's not an issue that will mobilize millions of people to support a new political party. A mass movement about the war, about the economy, about health care -- sure. A mass movement about global warming -- doubtful (though as a Sierra Club member I'd love to see it). A mass movement about IRV -- inconceivable.

[defendandprotect]

76. The DLC and blue dogs represent Republican interests . . .

in the Democratic Party . . .
Do you understand that?

I find your responses hard to believe unless you support the DLC and blue dogs?


DLC recruiting more blue dogs doesn't bother you---???

The DLC and "blue dogs" are just differences on political issues --??
they represent the issue of corporate control of a people's government!
Of course, the DLC corporate-sponsors are pursuing "their stated objectives;" unfortunately, that is
to move the Democratic Party to the right. To destroy social programs. To promote corporate interests.

I think, unfortunately, you have a very surface knowledge of Nader as I've frequently seen here.
Nader's objective is, as a candidate, to cut into the vote of his fellow candidates; isn't that
what you expected Gore to do? Why wouldn't any candidate admit to that?
You seem to think that the only legitimacy in an election is on the side of the two major parties?

Again --- Kucinich was an established Democrat. What benefit would there have been for him to declare himself as a Green? He would be severely attacked by his fellow representatives and by the party. We've seen this at the State level where a Democrat has switched to the Green Party.

It is difficult to imagine being able to help you "make the Democratic Party more progressive" when you seem to be so undisturbed about the corporate influences over the party . . . !
After all, I trust that you understand that our overall fight is against corporate-fscism?

About this . . .
Finally, about IRV, I'm familiar with it. My point was that it's not an issue that will mobilize millions of people to support a new political party. A mass movement about the war, about the economy, about health care -- sure. A mass movement about global warming -- doubtful (though as a Sierra Club member I'd love to see it). A mass movement about IRV -- inconceivable.

Most other nations use IRV voting ---
If Americans were more familiar with it, they would demand it.
If Democrats were truly concerned about any third party candidate cutting into their vote,
they would put it in place! The reason they don't is because they understand that it would
give Democrats another option which they fear.

[Jim Lane]

80. I don't support the DLC, but I support their right to organize.

You keep saying "disturb". Sorry, I find that too vague. The DLC has a legal right to recruit candidates who share their views, just as McCain has a legal right to urge Americans to be willing to occupy Iraq for a hundred years, and just as Nader had a legal right to try to hurt Gore's campaign. Each of these things disturbs me in the sense that each makes it less likely that my political views will prevail. None of them, however, disturbs me in the same way that an illegality does (for example, the illegal purge of 50,000 Florida voters).

I think most people would see the difference between these two categories.

If you believe that Nader's candidacies have promoted the overall fight against corporate fascism, then it makes sense for you to support him. My personal opinion is that Kucinich's candidacies have promoted that fight. Nader's candidacies have hurt that fight. Fortunately, the damage Nader does this year will be very small, because he is now so widely perceived as an egotistical jerk. (You obviously don't share that perception. I'll let you have the last word if you want to weigh in with a spirited defense of the Nader 2008 campaign.)

[defendandprotect]

81. If you understand our system of campaign funding, you might see it

as legalized bribery . . .
I think that's how most of us see it --- ???
Most of us see --- as Nader has been pointing out for more than three decades ---
that this is a system whereby corporations BUY candidates and our government ---
i.e., our people's government has been sold out to corporations.
This is -- as most of us refer to it -- "legal bribery."

And just why would you support the DLC's "right" to organize the Democratic Party in supporting the Bush/GOP agenda? How can you possibly say something like that????
Does it occur to you that this is a co-option of the Democratic Party and its ideals?

If you have been reading various posts here, you would have seen the growing sentiment that
capitalism itself -- unregulated capitalism --- is merely organized crime.
Corporations are a tool of capitalism.
Capitalism is not synonymous with democracy.

A people's government is synonymous with democracy and its ideals --

So when I say to you that I am wondering why this corporate infiltration of the Democratic Party, its buy-out of our government, our government agencies, our Congress, and our political parties doesn't "disturb" you, I am pointing to your very low reaction level to it.

You've made some rather odd statements about "rights" ---
McCain has a legal right to urge Americans to be willing to occupy Iraq for a hundred years
but, why doesn't the notion of McCain lacking a MORAL right to occupy Iraq enter your mind?
You do realize, of course, that this was an "illegal" war of aggression on another nation?

And you're hung up on Nader's "HURTING" Gore's campaign ---
do you understand that Gore was also there to HURT his opponents campaigns?
Same thing --- !

And, here, you cite something that actually disturbs you . . .

None of them, however, disturbs me in the same way that an illegality does (for example, the illegal purge of 50,000 Florida voters).

Now -- this is of course vote stealing by the GOP ---
Actually, I think the numbers were much higher ---
However, what response has the Democratic Party made to that outrage since that time?
Neither the American "free press" nor the Democratic Party have dealt with that issue.
Greg Palast knew about the purges 8 months before the election and tried to get our press
to publish the story. And what has happened since then? Nothing, as far as I can see....

I think most people would see the difference between these two categories.

I don't see anything but confusion in your response which I presume is clear from my reply.

Again, you seem to have anger with Nader intertwined with all of your opinions which is
rather difficult to understand. Gore WON in 2000. Kerry probably WON in 2004. However,
that doesn't seem to register with you.

Nader's decades of work have educated the American public in regard to corporate-fascism . . .
his campaigns are about every issue under the sun. At some point, I will try to find his
2000 Platform because most people here have no idea as to the extensiveness of the issues
the platform covered.

There is nothing that Kucinich speaks about that Nader hasn't brought to the attention of the
American public long, long ago. Yes, there has been an obvious propaganda effort to try to smear Nader --- but most people have woken up from that myth. As I presume you read what Al From said about Nader . . . ????

Your idea that Nader's 2008 campaign requires a "defense" continues to speak to your suggestion that he is somehow doing something wrong in your mind. IMO, Nader will once again speak to the many issues which we hear nothing from the Repugs and Dems about . . .

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. Yup. With good cop/bad cop wings.

But, both with the same masters. Money may not be able to buy love but it sure as hell can buy public office.

[applegrove]

20. Thanks Mr. Nader for your post.

[Individualist]

22. Corporatist party would be a more appropriate name

[skipos]

25. And the solution is for our Dem nominee to choose RON PAUL as VP!

That will really make it a two party system again. :eyes:

[Enrique]

31. Ron Paul is just another Demublican!

:sarcasm:

[blindpig]

29. So,

what ya'll gonna do about it?

[Greyhound]

37. Everything he states in that video is true, so what's the point?

OF course I'm also one of those here that doesn't believe Nader made one whit of difference in the coup of 2000.

[slipslidingaway]

39. A conversation with Dennis Kucinich...

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/currents/13059612.html
or
http://www.truthdig.com/interview/item/20080106_a_conversation_with_dennis_kucinich/


"...Hedges: Have we evolved into a corporate state?

Kucinich: I Look at it as the political equivalent of genetic engineering. That we've taken the gene of corporate America and shot it into both political parties. So they both now are growing with that essence within. So what does that mean? It means oil runs our politics. Corrupt Wall Street interests run our politics. Insurance companies run our politics. Arms manufacturers run our politics. And the public interest is being strangled. Fulfilling the practical aspirations of people should be our mission...


Kucinich: There has to come a moment of awareness. Something will happen to cause people to become aware of what's happening, of what's happened to the government. This is why impeachment is so important. Impeachment would bring up the whole train of abuses that have caused our government to become less democratic. The lies to take us into wars, the eavesdropping, the wiretapping, the rendition, the torture, I mean it all becomes one piece. If people see the whole thing at once, it then creates a kind of awareness that will create some change. I have no doubt about that at all, none whatsoever. What's happened is that people just see bits and pieces and it is never being tied together. I feel we are losing our democracy to lies that took us into war, lies that caused the destruction of essential civil liberties, lies that are driving us into debt, corruption on Wall Street and a Democratic Party that has lost its will to fight these people...


Kucinich: There is no other Democrat who is advocating a not-for-profit system. I am the only one, and I am the only one with a plan and I am the coauthor of the bill and I have been involved in this for years. In 2000 I took this plan to the Democratic Platform Committee with a group of people from California including Gloria Allred, Tom Hayden, Lila Garret. We offered it. But we were asked not to even offer it by the Gore campaign because that it would be a slap in the face to the interests that were helping the campaign. In 2004 I offered the same proposal to the platform committee and it was rejected again. Now, if there is any issue that the Democratic Party could establish itself on, in the same way FDR established the Democratic Party with the New Deal, the Democratic Party as a party could reestablish as a party of workers and small business in a single stroke by standing firmly as a party for single-payer, not-for-profit health care. The party refuses to do it. There are 83 members of the House that have signed onto the bill HR 676, but the fact that the Congress . . . I was the coauthor of the bill . . . Here again this is one of those areas as president my positions run contrary to the rest of the Democratic field, but also my own party...


Kucinich: I have been trying to make the Democrats an effective second party. This is my second effort at doing that..."

[TahitiNut]

44. He's earned my vote with his postions on this and other associated issues.

That's more than I can say about virtually any other candidate. :shrug:

[slipslidingaway]

46. Mine as well...

I just could not push the button for one of the top two candidates :(

[Disturbed]

49. "Democratic Party that has lost its will to fight these people..."

Isn't that mostly a true statement of fact?

[slipslidingaway]

52. I would say yes or maybe they believe that what this administration

has done is really not so bad.

:shrug:

[lynnertic]

56. !!!

:loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya:
:loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya:
:loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya:
:loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya:
:loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya:
:loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya:
:loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya:
:loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya:
:loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya:
:loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya:

[Warren Stupidity]

48. And he is right and unlike Nader is working to change one

half of the duopoly. Nader's analysis is correct, his prescription is wrong. Kucinich is working within the Democratic Party to refrom the party and to separate it from the clutches of the corporate cabal. Nader is just having a tantrum over on the side that at best can only hurt us.

[defendandprotect]

64. Rather, it looks like the Dem party "reformed" Kucinich . . .

Who support Kucinich when he got kicked out of the debates --- ? Two debates --- ???

The DLC is mothering any liberal or progressive ideals in the Democratic Party ---
while supporting the war making/war profiteering of Bush ---
helping to finance it!!!

Nader was onto all of this long, long ago --- in fact, most of what we know about this corruption and criminality we know from Nader's work --

[varelse]

50. He's not the only one saying that

not by a long shot. It's going to be a struggle getting those who agree with that sentiment out to the polls in November, too. That's one reason to hope that the Democratic "Presumptive Nominee" is chosen soon, because much work is ahead of the Democrats and other progressives to get the vote out on OUR side in the GE.

[defendandprotect]

65. Everyone recognizes the truth of it --- it's undeniable ---

CHARLES LEWIS . . . has a fantastic organization --- which I can't think of the name of at the moment . . . which studies the contributions ---

This has been an undeniable fact that both parties have the same owners for decades ---

And it's one of the reasons that Dean was so successful before the corporations and the DLC
undid his candidacy --- replacing him with Kerry!

"SOON" and tying things up with a bow is, IMO, a mistake ---
You then give the GOP an absolute target to shoot at for the next 8 months ---
rather than keeping four candidates in and a lively interest in the closing days of
the Convention.

PLUS you would have had Kucinich and Edwards in their pushing for the liberal/progressive ideals.

[pleah]

53. Go Dennis! That is why the MSM, corporations and the sheeple did not choose him.

I think he is pretty close to the truth on this one. I've said it before on DU that they are all bought and paid for. You just seem to get the lesser of two evils with Dems.

[eridani]

54. Yet Kucinich remains a Democrat

I figured out why in 2004, and haven't changed my mind. There is a new way of doing politics combining old fashioned personal contact combined with the internet and other new media which will eventually let us do and end run around MSM and big money which is coming into being At the moment, however, Kucinich is just pointing out the obvious.

[defendandprotect]

66. In NJ legislature, we had a terrific guy who was a Dem switch to Green Party . . .

Well, it was like a bee hive bursting over him with the Dem reaction ---
he just got torn apart ---

So . . . until the numbers begin to build up --- the Dems are ferocious about the Greens --
they've infiltrated the party and create a lot of problems.

[lynnertic]

55. boo, i can only recommend threads started in the last 24 hrs

there should be an exception for weekends :evilgrin:

[tomreedtoon]

67. No, it was said by George Wallace.

"Forty years ago, third-party presidential candidate George Wallace cackled that there wasn't "a dime's worth of difference" between Republican Richard Nixon and Democrat Hubert Humphrey." (from newmediajournal.us)

I find it amusing that the most liberal candidate in either party is taking the same position as the most right-wing Democrat of the 1960's.

[Kitty Herder]

82. Some truths are so obvious that they transcend ideology. nt

[Blue_Tires]

75. ttt